Search This Blog

Into the Astro Industry with Kristen Griffin (part 1)

This is Part 1 of my interview with Ph.D. Astronomer, Kristen Shapiro Griffin. Kristen is a former classmate of mine from UC Berkeley (go BADGrads!) and she is also my grand-mentee from the UC Berkeley Astronomy peer mentoring program: I mentored Julie Comerford, and Julie mentored Kristen. Kristen went to work at Northrop Grumman upon receiving her doctorate and she now lives in SoCal. I asked her to share her thoughts and experiences on the astronomy "industry" (non-academic) path. My questions and Kristen's insightful answers are given below. Stay tuned for Parts 2 and 3!

0) Tell me about your job! What does
your day-to-day look like?How is it
different now than when you started, and what was that evolution like?

I work at Northrop Grumman
Aerospace Systems in the civil space new mission area.My official title is Systems Engineer, which
means that my job is to design systems that work together effectively to meet
the mission objectives – in this case, to return the desired science.In practice, this means that my job is split
into two parts.The science part involves
lots of interaction with the research community (in my case, astrophysics and
planetary science) to understand science needs for upcoming missions and to
make sure that the community is aware of state-of-the-art industry capabilities
that might enable future science.The
engineering part involves working closely with engineers at Northrop Grumman to
design the actual mission; this includes orbital mechanics, simulation of
science operations, spacecraft engineering, and instrument engineering.On the side, I also do some technical tasks
in support of missions in the development, construction, and operational phases
here at Northrop Grumman, including JWST.

Northrop Grumman: Science! Technology!
Meetings that end on time!

My day-to-day varies a
lot.There are almost always a handful
of meetings, for technical discussions, collaboration building, project
coordination, progress reporting, budget planning, etc.Meetings start and stop on time; sometimes I
have back-to-back all day and sometimes almost none.When I’m at my desk, I do any of the
following: science or engineering tasks in support of our missions under
design, simulations of mission performance, generate text or PowerPoint charts
to communicate results to diverse audiences, generate project management
materials such as budgets and staffing plans, work on documentation of
engineering efforts and status, and many other things.Often I do multiple, very different tasks
during one day, and of course there’s always more tasks than there is
time.I am expected to prioritize
accordingly and meet all my deadlines.

Over my three years at
Northrop Grumman, my position has developed from team member to science lead to
project lead on multiple mission design efforts.The impact to my day-to-day has been
relatively minimal, although increased responsibility carries with it increased
accountability in the form of reporting results, monitoring budgets, and
communicating needs to management.

1)You were an extremely competent and
accomplished astro grad student at UC Berkeley.Why'd you leave? (my question from back in the day that will be shared
by many astronomers)

I want to spend a minute and take
issue with the question, “Why’d you leave?”The implication in the question is that an academic career is the most successful and desirable outcome, and I would really
love to see this change.People have
diverse interests, and our community really ought to support, in word and in
action, sending our best and brightest out into the world to make a difference
in ways besides research.There are so
many important roles that need a strong science presence, in government,
industry, non-profits, and education.Moreover, there are not enough long-term research positions in academia
to support the current PhD and postdoc output.So let’s get the word “leave” out of our vocabulary and start
demonstrating to our students the real value in non-academic career options.

J-Dub!

That said, the reason I “left” had
nothing to do with feeling negative about a research career.I love research, and I like to think I was
pretty decent at it.It also had nothing
to do with getting away from all the trials of multiple postdocs, tenure,
work-life, etc.It was because I’m
passionate about being involved in where astronomy and other physical sciences
are going, and I was eager to be a part of that process.I saw that, in academia, only the most
accomplished senior faculty have the opportunity to influence the direction of
the field (e.g. through leading Decadal survey panels, NASA mission review
panels, institutes, etc), and that path would take me 20-30 years with only a very
slim chance of success.In my current
position, I was able to step straight from grad school into the cutting edge of
future technologies and future missions.It is incredibly exciting and a superb fit for me.

2)
Have you ever regretted leaving?

No. Never. Not even on exceptionally bad days.

There are four reasons for this:

A pipeline leading into an ocean.

The job. I spent a lot of time and
effort on my job search and as a result was able to find a job where both the
big picture and the (majority of) the day-to-day tasks make me happy.

The people. The scientists, engineers, NASA employees, etc that I have
met and worked with outside of academia are some of the most brilliant people I
have ever encountered.Their expertise is
in areas so far removed from mine that meetings and collaborations are a
learning experience for all involved, and the products are creative solutions
to big problems.I have found my
co-workers and outside collaborators to be supportive and a pleasure to work
with.As a side benefit, the
demographics were also a pleasant surprise.Roughly 50% of the people I work with day-to-day are women, including
quite a few in senior positions, and there is ethnic diversity as well.

The
environment. Contrary to my expectations, I really thrive in a
professional environment. In exchange for having to step-up my wardrobe
and spend a little more time on my appearance in the morning, I've enjoyed the
extra professionalism with which people interact in industry; I like to say
that people have to "check the crazy at the door." There are
expectations for how people present themselves and deal with one another, and
problems are taken seriously and addressed by HR.Additionally, the
company respects its employees by offering real benefits: 401k, annual time
off, ompensated parental leave, insurance for everything you could ever
imagine (medical, dental, vision, disability, AD&D, life, spouse's life,
legal, etc.).

Career
opportunities.There is a fear in academia
that, if you leave, you can never go back, and you can never successfully
re-enter the pipeline.And, frankly,
that’s probably true.However, when I
look forward now and think about the possible directions for my future career
growth, I find them to be staggeringly diverse.The number of doors opened by a few years of experience in government,
industry, etc is simply incredible, and I would never trade the opportunities I
now have.Outside of academia, there is
no pipeline; there’s an ocean.

3) What do you miss the most about academia?

My friends and collaborators in academia, scattered across the globe. In academia, the round-the-world conference circuit meant that I saw the usual suspects in my sub-field at least once a year, somewhere. In my current position, I'm incredibly fortunate to be able to still connect with my US-based friends at AAS and DPS; however, international travel is a much bigger deal at my company than it was in academia. As a result, I have friends and former collaborators whom I haven't seen since I took this position, and I wish that were different.

4) What do you miss the least?

You know, in my opinion, there are a several things that are fundamentally broken in academic positions and career paths, and I think a good fraction of your readers have spent some time themselves thinking about these things. So I won't go into them here.

However, the number one thing that I really don't miss (which I will discuss) is what I call the "existential stress" of academia: will I get a postdoc? where will it be? can my family move there? can they move again 3 years later? will I find a permanent position? etc. Yes, there is always uncertainty in industry because jobs aren't guaranteed, and yes, I will likely make several job (and possibly physical) moves over the course of my career. But I have to tell you, it is simply much less existentially stressful on this side. My chances are much greater, in industry, that major moves will be on my timescale, one that fits my career and my family, and not on an arbitrary three, five, or seven year deadline.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:

It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…

Judge Roberts, a member of the highest court in the land, which is currently hearing the sad story of mediocre college aspirant Abigail Fischer, recently asked, "What unique ­perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class? I’m just wondering what the benefits of diversity are in that situation?"
Did you catch the white supremacy in this question? If not, don't feel bad because it's subtly hidden beneath the cloaking field of colorblind racism. (As for Scalia's ign'nt-ass statements, I'm not even...)
Try rephrasing the question: "What unique perspective does a white student bring to a physics classroom?" The answer is, of course, absolutely nothing! Why? Because race isn't biological, and is therefore not deterministic of cognitive abilities. Did you perhaps forget that you knew that when considering Roberts' question? If so, again, it's understandable. Our society and culture condition all of us to forget basic facts …